If you're wondering why Louisiana has the highest incarceration rate in the world, it's because of cases like this.

That's the prison sentence Gary Howard received after he was arrested in 2013 and charged with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and illegal possession of a firearm. He was acquitted of the gun charge but, because of his status as a repeat offender, he was sentenced to 18 years in prison on the other count—a year for every gram of marijuana—without the possibility of parole.

The Louisiana Supreme Court, in an opinion issued Wednesday, upheld Howard's sentence, but the chief justice of the state's high court, Bernette Johnson, wrote a scathing dissent:

I find it outrageous that defendant's conviction of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, and sentence of 18 years imprisonment without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence, resulting from the discovery of a mere 18 grams of marijuana, will be allowed to stand. Considering the rapidly relaxing social attitudes toward the use of marijuana, the increasing number of states whose voters have approved the recreational use of marijuana,1 and changing laws (even in Louisiana)2 providing more lenient penalties relative to marijuana possession, the result of this case is even more ridiculous[…]

As a practical matter, in light of the inconsequential amount of marijuana found, imprisoning defendant for this extreme length of time at a cost of about $23,000 per year (costing our state over $400,000 in total) provides little societal value and only serves to further burden our financially strapped state and its tax payers.

Sentences like Howard's are currently at the heart of a battle in Louisiana to change the state's notoriously punitive criminal justice system. Louisiana currently has the highest incarceration rate in the world, and state governor John Bel Edwards has made it one of his first-term goals to cut the state's prison population enough that it drops to number two in the ignominious rankings.

As I reported earlier this year, Edwards has been joined by a bipartisan group of legislators, business and evangelical groups, criminal justice organizations, and law enforcement officials that all support overhauling the state's criminal justice system. A state task force released a set of recommendations in March that would have intro more rigorous felony classification system, reducing sentences for nonviolent crimes and expanded eligibility for parole and drug courts. Also, those sentenced to life without parole as juveniles would be eligible for parole, bringing the state in line with a 2012 Supreme Court ruling that declared such sentences unconstitutional.

However, state district attorneys have fiercely opposed many of those proposals, especially any that would give inmates convicted of violent felonies any shot at an early release or parole.

On Wednesday, Edwards and state prosecutors struck a compromise that would water down or delay the most sweeping changes being proposed, as well as scrap release opportunities for almost all of the roughly 5,000 Louisiana inmates serving life without parole.

Many criminal justice experts, like Rob Smith, director of Harvard Law School's Fair Punishment Project, argue that almost all offenders eventually age out of crime. (Louisiana Corrections Secretary Jimmy LeBlanc, who also favors reforms, likes to call it "criminal menopause.")

"People change; often profoundly so," Smith says. "The package of bills in Louisiana would simply provide some of Louisiana's longest serving prisoners with an opportunity to show that they have earned a second chance."

"Ultimately, though, the failing in Louisiana is on two levels," Smith continues. "The legislature has passed some of the most draconian sentencing laws in the country, and the Louisiana courts have failed to meaningfully engage with these extremely harsh sanctions. It is the role and duty of the judiciary to protect people from excessive infringements on their right to liberty and to ensure that sentences are not so needlessly cruel as to undermine the basic obligation of the government to affirm the dignity of all of its citizens."

Until Louisiana can get everyone—including district attorneys—to agree that its system needs changing, people like Howard will still serve years in prison for drugs, and the state will no doubt hold on to its world title in carceral enthusiasm.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

not the least of which is that prosecution stats help them get re-elected to higher office.

I’m not entirely certain that this is now or has ever been true except in highly politically conscious voters and higher-office-minded prosecutor echo chambers. I’ve never seen a race come down to no. of trials or no. of convictions comparison and would be surprised if most of the time the majority of voters even know/knew at all. It sounds and feels a lot like an Citizens United truism where the candidate with the most and largest investors always wins.

Well, the do it for some reason. I think elections have something to do with it in places where they are elected. It also seems likely that they are just bullies and it makes them feel big and important to send people to prison for a long time.

Considering the rapidly relaxing social attitudes toward the use of marijuana, the increasing number of states whose voters have approved the recreational use of marijuana,1 and changing laws (even in Louisiana)2 providing more lenient penalties relative to marijuana possession, the result of this case is even more ridiculous

That’s the prison sentence Gary Howard received after he was arrested in 2013 and charged with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute…

Intent to distribute? For 18 GRAMS?! I thought they could only reasonably claim* “intent to distribute” if the amount of pot was such that the person couldn’t reasonably consume it all by themselves. Or was he caught in the act of actually trying to sell the pot in question (possibly to an undercover cop)? Seems like a case of bullshit overcharging unless he was actually caught dealing.

*And of course that’s all they can do is “claim” since it’s physically impossible to prove another person’s intent.

Not sure what the law is in Colorado*, but usually when I see/ hear about someone getting nailed with intent to distribute it’s because they had several pounds of the stuff.

*Yes, weed is legal here, but highly regulated and you can’t sell it unless you operate a licensed dispensary (you can, however, share up to an ounce with a friend so long as no filthy dirty money changes hands), so people do still get busted with pot offenses, just not nearly as much as in other places.

Unless dude is caught in the act of selling the pile of dimebags, who’s to know why he has them, or that shitty postal scale?

Maybe he’s anal retentive about measuring out his weed in discrete “doses”? I don’t know if anyone’s tried using that defense or if it would really fly with a jury. Probably would depend on how much weed we’re talking about. 18 GRAMS? Not ounces, GRAMS. That’s ~0.6 ounces. Here in CO that would be perfectly legal so long as he didn’t spark up in public. In LA apparently it gets you slapped with 18 years for “intent to distribute”. Fucking ridiculous.

In general, I don’t see how you can prove someone’s intentions beyond a reasonable doubt unless you’re a mind reading warlock or you have actual evidence.

In LA apparently it gets you slapped with 18 years for “intent to distribute”. Fucking ridiculous.

No, it’s the “intent to distribute” that gets you for “intent to distribute.” LA has a remarkably high prison population but it’s still only a small fraction of what it’d be if half an ounce was automatically “intent”

WHAT FUCKING PILE OF BAGGIES? The article doesn’t specify how many baggies the weed was in, you’re just assuming that it was. If you have a source besides your blind assumption, then link to it or STFU.

We find that, while the quantity of marijuana is small, its packaging in conjunction with other indicia of drug trafficking found nearby…

The officers found defendant in bed. They also found 11 grams of marijuana, in four separate bags inside a larger bag tied around the waistband of his boxer shorts (which were on the floor), another bag containing 7 grams of marijuana inside the bedroom closet, and a box of sandwich bags sitting on a TV stand in the bedroom.

Fine, intent to distribute it is. You could have just pointed that out earlier.

That’s a large but not remotely implausible personal stash, for a serious smoker.

Really? Not being a consumer, this seems hilariously wrong. I can’t remember the last time I smoked tobacco but I’m certain it was more than 18 grams worth at the time. It can’t be more than 1-2 cigarettes worth.

That or the million-dollar bales of stuff DEA agents pose on top of must be absolute shit relative to whatever solid gold product this guy was carrying.

And we don’t know if that was the case here or not. Given that prosecutors everywhere love overcharging defendants in order to scare them into accepting plea deals, it wouldn’t surprise me if that’s what was really happening here. Some folks seem more inclined to assume this guy had his weed in multiple baggies. OTOH, I choose to assume that the prosecutor was a sniveling shit weasel who was throwing as many charges as he could get away with at him.

They also found 11 grams of marijuana, in four separate bags inside a larger bag tied around the waistband of his boxer shorts (which were on the floor), another bag containing 7 grams of marijuana inside the bedroom closet, and a box of sandwich bags sitting on a TV stand in the bedroom. Also inside the closet, the officers found a gun, some 1×1 jeweler bags, and an empty prescription bottle with a small baggie inside containing marijuana residue.

WHAT FUCKING PILE OF BAGGIES? The article doesn’t specify how many baggies the weed was in, you’re just assuming that it was. If you have a source besides your blind assumption, then link to it or STFU.

Some folks seem more inclined to assume this guy had his weed in multiple baggies. OTOH, I choose to assume

That is being generous. I would call this headline fucking stupid. But then again, this is Reason. The poor guys doing 18 years for some fucking weed doesn’t think of this opinion as “destroyed.” You’d think that “destroyed” would be used in an article in which the defendant went free.